020.pdf
293 KB
Extraction Summary
11
People
7
Organizations
4
Locations
5
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal motion (motion to dismiss complaint)
File Size:
293 KB
Summary
This document is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeffrey Epstein's legal team on June 16, 2010, in the case of L.M. v. Epstein. Epstein's lawyers argue the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to serve the complaint within the required 120 days (Rule 4(m)). Furthermore, the motion alleges that the complaint filed by L.M. (represented by Bradley Edwards) was used as a prop in Scott Rothstein's massive $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme to lure investors with fabricated settlement agreements. The document cites depositions where L.M. contradicts allegations made in her complaint regarding sexual acts and travel.
People (11)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Moving to dismiss the complaint by L.M. based on lack of service and alleging the complaint was part of a Ponzi scheme.
|
| L.M. | Plaintiff |
Filed a complaint against Epstein; accused by Epstein's lawyers of not serving the complaint and making false allegat...
|
| Scott W. Rothstein | Attorney / Criminal |
Chairman/CEO of RRA, ran a $1.2B Ponzi scheme; accused of using cases against Epstein to manufacture fake settlements...
|
| Bradley J. Edwards | Attorney |
Counsel for L.M.; former employee of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler (RRA); sued by Epstein for participation in the Po...
|
| Robert D. Critton, Jr. | Attorney |
Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein; signed the motion.
|
| Michael J. Pike | Attorney |
Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| Kenneth A. Marra | U.S. District Judge |
Presiding judge; signature was forged by Rothstein in other cases.
|
| James Cohn | U.S. District Judge |
Sentenced Scott Rothstein; quoted regarding Rothstein's fraud on the court.
|
| Susan H. Black | U.S. Circuit Court Judge |
Signature forged by Rothstein.
|
| Jane Doe | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in another case (08-CIV-80893) allegedly used by Rothstein as 'bait' for investors.
|
| E.W. | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in another case (502008CA028058XXXXMB) allegedly used by Rothstein as 'bait'.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A. (RRA) |
Defunct law firm used by Scott Rothstein to run a Ponzi scheme.
|
|
| Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman |
Law firm representing Jeffrey Epstein.
|
|
| Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL |
Law firm representing L.M. (Brad Edwards).
|
|
| D3 Capital Club, LLC |
Entity Rothstein attempted to lure with a fabricated $30M settlement against Epstein.
|
|
| United States District Court, Southern District of Florida |
Court where the case is filed.
|
|
| FBI |
Law enforcement agency; document claims L.M. was not on their victim list despite allegations.
|
|
| U.S. Attorney's Office |
Prosecuting authority.
|
Timeline (5 events)
2009-11-01
RRA's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme was exposed and the firm imploded.
Florida
Scott Rothstein
2010-06-09
Sentencing hearing for Scott Rothstein where he received 50 years.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Scott Rothstein
Judge James Cohn
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
|
|
Address of Epstein's counsel.
|
|
|
Address of L.M.'s counsel.
|
|
|
Location of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.
|
Relationships (3)
Epstein sued Rothstein for using his name and cases to fabricate settlements for a Ponzi scheme.
Document states Edwards filed the complaint while employed by the now defunct Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler firm.
L.M. is the Plaintiff suing Epstein (Defendant).
Key Quotes (4)
"He forged these court orders [referring to the Morse case] to perpetrate the Ponzi scheme. There can be no conduct more reviled than a lawyer perpetrating a fraud on the court."Source
020.pdf
Quote #1
"Epstein files this motion for the sole purpose of having the cause dismissed and not to subject himself to service."Source
020.pdf
Quote #2
"More importantly, the Complaint may have been used by Scott Rothstein... in connection with his massive Ponzi scheme, which sold investments in fabricated settlements and cases."Source
020.pdf
Quote #3
"[Rothstein offered] D3 'the opportunity' to invest in a pre-suit $30,000,000.00 court settlement against EPSTEIN; yet this supposed settlement never existed and was entirely fabricated."Source
020.pdf
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (8,857 characters)
Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2010 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 09-CIV-81092 – MARRA/JOHNSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 09-CIV-81092 – MARRA/JOHNSON
L.M.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY EPSTEIN,
Defendants.
/
EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN (“Epstein”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), moves to
dismiss the Complaint (DE #1) filed by Plaintiff, L.M. due to her failure to serve the Complaint
on Epstein within the time specified in Rule 4(m), and states:
1. On July 24, 2009, L.M. filed a two hundred thirty-four (234) page, one hundred
fifty-six (156) count Complaint (DE #1) against Epstein.
2. Each of the one hundred fifty-six (156) counts is a separate cause of action pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §2255.
3. The Complaint was filed by Bradley J. Edwards while he was employed by the now
defunct Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler firm.
4. However, this Complaint served no legal purpose whatsoever in that at the time the
Complaint was filed LM had a pending state court action (which is still currently pending) seeking
damages under theories other than the exclusive remedies in 18 U.S.C. §2255. See L.M. v. Jeffrey
Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida.
dismiss the Complaint (DE #1) filed by Plaintiff, L.M. due to her failure to serve the Complaint
on Epstein within the time specified in Rule 4(m), and states:
1. On July 24, 2009, L.M. filed a two hundred thirty-four (234) page, one hundred
fifty-six (156) count Complaint (DE #1) against Epstein.
2. Each of the one hundred fifty-six (156) counts is a separate cause of action pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §2255.
3. The Complaint was filed by Bradley J. Edwards while he was employed by the now
defunct Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler firm.
4. However, this Complaint served no legal purpose whatsoever in that at the time the
Complaint was filed LM had a pending state court action (which is still currently pending) seeking
damages under theories other than the exclusive remedies in 18 U.S.C. §2255. See L.M. v. Jeffrey
Epstein, Case No. 502008CA028051XXXXMB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida.
Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2010 Page 2 of 6
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 -- Marra/Johnson
Page 2
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 -- Marra/Johnson
Page 2
5. This Complaint was never served on Epstein within the time required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(m) and should therefore be dismissed. Epstein files this motion for the sole purpose of having
the cause dismissed and not to subject himself to service. More importantly, the Complaint may
have been used by Scott Rothstein and the criminal enterprise Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A.,
(“RRA”) (so identified by the United States of America in U.S. v. Rothstein, Case No. 09-
60331CR-Cohn, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida), in connection with his massive
Ponzi scheme, which sold investments in fabricated settlements and cases (see infra).
P. 4(m) and should therefore be dismissed. Epstein files this motion for the sole purpose of having
the cause dismissed and not to subject himself to service. More importantly, the Complaint may
have been used by Scott Rothstein and the criminal enterprise Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, P.A.,
(“RRA”) (so identified by the United States of America in U.S. v. Rothstein, Case No. 09-
60331CR-Cohn, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida), in connection with his massive
Ponzi scheme, which sold investments in fabricated settlements and cases (see infra).
BACKGROUND
6. The Complaint (DE #1) was filed on July 24, 2009, four months before RRA’s
$1.2 billion Ponzi scheme was exposed in November 2009 and the RRA firm imploded.
7. The U.S government brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, Money
Laundering Conspiracy, Mail and Wire Fraud Conspiracy and Wire Fraud against its chairman
and CEO, Scott W. Rothstein, for using RRA to run a Ponzi scheme. See Information (DE #1) filed
in U.S. v. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
8. The Information asserts that “RRA was utilized by [Rothstein] ... to unlawfully
obtain approximately $1.2 billion from investors by fraud in connection with an investment scheme
commonly known as a ‘Ponzi’ scheme, in which new investors’ funds are utilized to pay previous
investors in the absence of any underlying security, legitimate investment vehicle or other
commodity.” The Information references Rothstein and other unidentified “co-conspirators”. See
Information ¶6 (DE #1) in Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn.
9. Rothstein conducted the Ponzi scheme “by fraudulently inducing investors through
the use of false statements, documents, and computer records to . . . invest funds based upon
anticipated pay-outs from purported confidential settlement agreement which had been reached
6. The Complaint (DE #1) was filed on July 24, 2009, four months before RRA’s
$1.2 billion Ponzi scheme was exposed in November 2009 and the RRA firm imploded.
7. The U.S government brought an action for Racketeering Conspiracy, Money
Laundering Conspiracy, Mail and Wire Fraud Conspiracy and Wire Fraud against its chairman
and CEO, Scott W. Rothstein, for using RRA to run a Ponzi scheme. See Information (DE #1) filed
in U.S. v. Rothstein, Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida.
8. The Information asserts that “RRA was utilized by [Rothstein] ... to unlawfully
obtain approximately $1.2 billion from investors by fraud in connection with an investment scheme
commonly known as a ‘Ponzi’ scheme, in which new investors’ funds are utilized to pay previous
investors in the absence of any underlying security, legitimate investment vehicle or other
commodity.” The Information references Rothstein and other unidentified “co-conspirators”. See
Information ¶6 (DE #1) in Case No. 09-60331CR-Cohn.
9. Rothstein conducted the Ponzi scheme “by fraudulently inducing investors through
the use of false statements, documents, and computer records to . . . invest funds based upon
anticipated pay-outs from purported confidential settlement agreement which had been reached
Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2010 Page 3 of 6
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 -- Marra/Johnson
Page 3
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 -- Marra/Johnson
Page 3
between and among certain individuals....” See Information ¶7A (DE #1) in Case No. 09-60331CR-
Cohn.
10. Rothstein manufactured false and fraudulent Court opinions/orders including forging
the signature of U.S. District Judge, Kenneth A. Marra and U.S. Circuit Court Judge, Susan H. Black,
11th Circuit in other cases (attached as Exhibit 1 hereto).
11. At Rothstein’s June 9, 2010 sentencing hearing, Judge James Cohn departed
upward from the government’s recommendation of 40 years and sentenced Rothstein to 50 years;
the underlying basis for this upward departure was quoted to be:
He forged these court orders [referring to the Morse case] to
perpetrate the Ponzi scheme. There can be no conduct more
reviled than a lawyer perpetrating a fraud on the court.
12. Epstein sued Rothstein, Bradley Edwards and LM for their participation in the
aforementioned Ponzi scheme in the case styled Epstein v. Rothstein, et al., Case No.
502009CA040800XXXXMBAG, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida.
13. Specifically, Epstein alleged that Rothstein used the cases against Epstein (Jane Doe
v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80893, U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla., L.M. v. Epstein, Case No.
502008CA028051XXXXMB AB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; and E.W. v. Epstein, Case No.
502008CA028058XXXXMB AB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit) as “bait” to lure potential
investors. See Complaint ¶20 in Epstein v. Rothstein, et al., Case No.
502009CA040800XXXXMBAG. In addition, Epstein alleged that “ROTHSTEIN attempted to lure
the entity known as D3 Capital Club, LLC, (“D3”), by offering D3 ‘the opportunity’ to invest in
a pre-suit $30,000,000.00 court settlement against EPSTEIN; yet this supposed settlement never
existed and was entirely fabricated.” Id. ¶28.
Cohn.
10. Rothstein manufactured false and fraudulent Court opinions/orders including forging
the signature of U.S. District Judge, Kenneth A. Marra and U.S. Circuit Court Judge, Susan H. Black,
11th Circuit in other cases (attached as Exhibit 1 hereto).
11. At Rothstein’s June 9, 2010 sentencing hearing, Judge James Cohn departed
upward from the government’s recommendation of 40 years and sentenced Rothstein to 50 years;
the underlying basis for this upward departure was quoted to be:
He forged these court orders [referring to the Morse case] to
perpetrate the Ponzi scheme. There can be no conduct more
reviled than a lawyer perpetrating a fraud on the court.
12. Epstein sued Rothstein, Bradley Edwards and LM for their participation in the
aforementioned Ponzi scheme in the case styled Epstein v. Rothstein, et al., Case No.
502009CA040800XXXXMBAG, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida.
13. Specifically, Epstein alleged that Rothstein used the cases against Epstein (Jane Doe
v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80893, U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla., L.M. v. Epstein, Case No.
502008CA028051XXXXMB AB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; and E.W. v. Epstein, Case No.
502008CA028058XXXXMB AB in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit) as “bait” to lure potential
investors. See Complaint ¶20 in Epstein v. Rothstein, et al., Case No.
502009CA040800XXXXMBAG. In addition, Epstein alleged that “ROTHSTEIN attempted to lure
the entity known as D3 Capital Club, LLC, (“D3”), by offering D3 ‘the opportunity’ to invest in
a pre-suit $30,000,000.00 court settlement against EPSTEIN; yet this supposed settlement never
existed and was entirely fabricated.” Id. ¶28.
Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2010 Page 4 of 6
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 – Marra/Johnson
Page 4
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 – Marra/Johnson
Page 4
14. Consistent with Rothstein’s Ponzi scheme, the Complaint makes a number of
false allegations and may have been shown to investors as part of the Ponzi scheme. These
include:
a. LM was identified as a victim by the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office in a criminal
investigation against Epstein. See DE #1 ¶19. However, LM was not on the FBI’s or
U.S. Attorney’s “list” referenced in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
b. Epstein “coerc[ed] or forc[ed] the then-minor L.M. to perform oral sex on him.” See
DE #1 ¶9. However, in her September 24, 2009 deposition LM testified under oath
(at page 71), that she never had oral sex with Epstein.
c. Epstein “knowingly transported L.M. and other minors in interstate commerce with
the intent that the [sic] L.M. engage in prostitution...” See DE #1 ¶12. However, in
her February 9, 2010 deposition LM testified under oath (at page 611) she never
traveled with Epstein.
15. Counsel for L.M. also should know that this action does not and cannot benefit
from the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) referenced in the Complaint. L.M. has not
exclusively pursued 18 U.S.C. §2255 remedies against Epstein in that L.M. has other pending
litigation where she seeks damages from various state court claims.
THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
16. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after
the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss
the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time.” (Emphasis added).
false allegations and may have been shown to investors as part of the Ponzi scheme. These
include:
a. LM was identified as a victim by the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office in a criminal
investigation against Epstein. See DE #1 ¶19. However, LM was not on the FBI’s or
U.S. Attorney’s “list” referenced in paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
b. Epstein “coerc[ed] or forc[ed] the then-minor L.M. to perform oral sex on him.” See
DE #1 ¶9. However, in her September 24, 2009 deposition LM testified under oath
(at page 71), that she never had oral sex with Epstein.
c. Epstein “knowingly transported L.M. and other minors in interstate commerce with
the intent that the [sic] L.M. engage in prostitution...” See DE #1 ¶12. However, in
her February 9, 2010 deposition LM testified under oath (at page 611) she never
traveled with Epstein.
15. Counsel for L.M. also should know that this action does not and cannot benefit
from the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) referenced in the Complaint. L.M. has not
exclusively pursued 18 U.S.C. §2255 remedies against Epstein in that L.M. has other pending
litigation where she seeks damages from various state court claims.
THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
16. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days after
the complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss
the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time.” (Emphasis added).
Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2010 Page 5 of 6
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 – Marra/Johnson
Page 5
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 – Marra/Johnson
Page 5
17. Epstein requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint (DE #1) due to LM’s
failure to timely effect service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and because the Complaint may
have been used as part of the RRA Ponzi scheme and serves no other legitimate purpose.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court enter an order
dismissing the Complaint (DE #1) and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Robert D. Critton
ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ.
Florida Bar # 224162
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this
day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by
CM/ECF on this 16th day of June 2010.
failure to timely effect service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and because the Complaint may
have been used as part of the RRA Ponzi scheme and serves no other legitimate purpose.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests the Court enter an order
dismissing the Complaint (DE #1) and grant any additional relief the Court deems just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Robert D. Critton
ROBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ.
Florida Bar # 224162
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the
Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this
day on all counsel of record identified on the following Service List in the manner specified by
CM/ECF on this 16th day of June 2010.
By: /s/ Robert D. Critton
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 224162
rcrit@bclclaw.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
mpike@bclclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ.
Florida Bar No. 224162
rcrit@bclclaw.com
MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ.
Florida Bar #617296
mpike@bclclaw.com
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN
303 Banyan Blvd., Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561/842-2820 Phone
561/515-3148 Fax
(Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein)
Case 9:09-cv-81092-KAM Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/16/2010 Page 6 of 6
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 – Marra/Johnson
Page 6
Certificate of Service
L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein
Case No. 09-CV-81092-MARRA/JOHNSON
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
& Lehrman, PL
425 N. Andrews Ave.
Suite #2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Fax: 954-524-2822
Brad@pathtojustice.com
bedwards@rra-law.com
L.M. v. Epstein
Case No. 09-CIV-81092 – Marra/Johnson
Page 6
Certificate of Service
L.M. v. Jeffrey Epstein
Case No. 09-CV-81092-MARRA/JOHNSON
Brad Edwards, Esq.
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
& Lehrman, PL
425 N. Andrews Ave.
Suite #2
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Fax: 954-524-2822
Brad@pathtojustice.com
bedwards@rra-law.com
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document